"... a local expression of a wider conflict."

6. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

The importance of Resolution 242 is at the centre of all attempts to
resolve the conflict today and critically revolves around the words “all
the” and the extent of the withdrawal.

Notwithstanding the passage of a number of weak Security Council resolutions
calling for a cease-fire (the first of which took some thirty two hours
to pass because the Russian delegation tried to include within it a condemnation
of Israel as the aggressor), the fighting continued until June 10, 1967.
Even then violations of the cease fire continued to occur, the last being
the sinking by Egypt of the Israeli destroyer Eilat on October 21, 1967.
This brought an Israeli reprisal on October 24, 1967 with the destruction
of the Egyptian oil refineries at Suez. The Security Council took more
than five months to arrive at an agreed Resolution. [1]

After intense diplomatic activity, the text – drafted in English - was
finally negotiated and carefully crafted by Lord Caradon, head of the
British delegation and approved unanimously by the Security Council on
November 22 1967.

Resolution 242 declares that the establishment of a just and lasting
peace in the Middle East should include the application of both the following
principles:

Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the
recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for
and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence of every State in the area and their right to live in
peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or
acts of force.

The Resolution also affirms further the necessity for:

(i) for guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways
in the area;

Since Resolution 242 is often misquoted, the following points should
be carefully noted:

a. Israeli Withdrawal “from Territories”

i. All or Partial?

The sponsors of the resolution, intentionally omitted from the text
the significant words “all the” before the word “territories.”

The General Assembly had had presented before it four earlier draft
resolutions which were more demanding of Israel and which failed
to obtain the necessary support. Two of them employ language which
the Palestinians continue to declare as being the UN’s intention,
notwithstanding their rejection. GA A/L 522 introduced by Yugoslavia
called for Israel to withdraw behind the lines established in 1948
General Armistice Agreements; Resolution A/L 523 submitted by the
Latin-American Nations required Israel to withdraw “from all the
territories;”

The Security Council had had a number of meetings between November
9 through November 22, 1967, following a request by the United Arab
Republic (Egypt). Two draft resolutions had been presented to the
Council; the first by India, Mali and Nigeria; the second by the
USA. During the meetings two further drafts were prepared: one by
Britain and the other by the Soviets. This latter draft, which included
a clause requiring Israel to withdraw to the pre war cease fire
lines of June 5, 1967 was rejected. Only the British draft, being
a compromise between the various drafts submitted, was ever voted
upon and passed unanimously;

Successive British Foreign Secretaries, Michael Stewart, in November
17, 1969, and George Brown, on January 19, 1970, both confirmed
to Parliament that intentional omission of the words “all the” from
the Resolution and implies that Israel is not required to retreat
to the boundaries in effect before 1967, namely the Armistice lines
determined in 1948 - and that territorial adjustments have to be
made.

Lord Caradon himself admitted to the same position:

“Withdrawal should take place to boundaries which are both secure
and recognized….. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the
border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory
border. It is where troops had to stop, just where they happened to
be that night. That is not a permanent boundary.” (Lord Caradon
Interview Kol Yisrael February 1973 [3]

Since the negotiation of the resolution was conducted in English
and the language of its draft and final texts were similarly expressed,
it is the English version of the Resolution which should be utilized
in matters of interpretation and application. The French translation,
even though an official UN document, is inaccurate. It calls for "retrait
des forces arrives Isreliennes des territoires occupés lores dur recent
conflit " A more accurate translation of the English text would
have been "de territories". This notwithstanding, Palestinian
supporters continue to quote the French text as demanding that Israel
withdraw from all the territories. [4]

ii. Withdrawal to Secure and Recognised Boundaries

Paragraph ii of the Resolution demands the termination of belligerency
and respect the right for every State in the area "to live in peace
within secure and recognized boundaries." This creates a problem
for implementation. The term "secure" would include geographic,
political and military parameters. The setting of a "secure"
geographic boundary, presumes that the then existing political and military
components which influence the physical location of the boundary line
on the ground, will remain unchanged over time. In the Middle East this
may be an unrealistic assumption. Given the rapid technological, economic,
and political changes in the region, it is impossible to rely on the
continuation of the present political constellations and their policies
over any long term. Consequently, from a military perspective, the physical
boundaries have to be set such as will provide Israel with enough strategic
depth to allow her to organize and repel an attack initiated by any
neighbouring state in the event of adverse changes in the political
environment. [5][6]

b. Resolution 242 Does Not Designate The Territories as
Arab or Palestinian

Resolution 242 makes no reference whatsoever to “Palestine” or to any
“Palestinian” jurisdiction. It merely requires Israeli withdrawal from
territory. It is theoretically conceivable, therefore, that some Jewish
populated settlements could remain in the territories under whatever
jurisdiction is established (presumably Palestinian) and subject to
that law, just as many Arab villages exist peaceably within Israel proper
and are subject to Israeli law. Only negotiations will determine which
portion of the West Bank territories will eventually become “Israeli
territory” and that which will be retained by Israel’s Arab counterpart.

c. Refugees

In referring to a “just settlement” of the refugee problem, UNSC Resolution
242 makes no reference to the refugees’ place of origin and unlike UNGA
Resolution 181, neither does Resolution 242 refer to any specific means
by which the refugee problem may be resolved such as a “right of return.”
Since the outcome of the Six Day War directly affected them, it might
be assumed (incorrectly), that the Resolution refers obviously to Palestinian
refugees. However, it must be remembered that the refugee problem was
originally created as a result of 1948-1949 conflict which affected
both Arabs and Jews and the short duration of the 1967 war did not exacerbate
the situation significantly. While Israel has resolved on its own account
the plight of the Jewish refugees, Palestinian refugees have been left
to the tender mercies of their host countries and continue to be reliant
upon UN and other international aid.

Palestinain Arab refugee camps have to a great extent been physically
absorbed into the urban areas close to where they were originally located
and have become almost indistinguishable from them. Their populations,
however, have not been fully integrated into their host societies. Apart
from Jordan, neither Lebanon nor Syria, have offered Palestinian refugees
the right to become citizens.

Thus in searching for a “just” settlement of the refugees’ problems,
the responsibility of the Arab states who invaded Palestine in 1948
must be taken into account – not only for the prolongation of the Arab
refugees’ plight, but also for the loss of life and property of those
Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries.

We have made every effort to give full accreditation and endeavoured to ensure
that copyright has been respected. If you feel that your copyright has been
infringed by any material here please advise us and we will immediately
remove it.